boycott united forever

On Fri, 13 May 2005 14:26:11 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:

In 1935, life expectancy was 63.

Probably it was a bit higher than that, but your premise is sound.
Ever wonder why the magic figure of 65 as the retirement age?

Because when Germany instituted the first old-age pension in the 19th
century, Otto von Bismark (whose idea it was) asked an economist to
tell him at what age most workers were already dead. The answer: 65.
So you got the old-age pension only if you beat the odds.

Today that would kick in at, what, 77?



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

I can respect a man with a possitive attitude.

Although I'll get some sort of Social Security, (according to the
mailings I get from SS), I wont plan around it. My plan is to just
accumulate a few rental properties and live off of that 'til I die.
One more thing, Laotian and Thai ctradition is that the kids will
support me and the mrs. in our old age. I'm raising my kids for this,
BUT, I wont plan around that either. LOL

Flyingmonk

Matt Barrow wrote:

I remember the media crowing about how good it was going to be for
United
when the union became the primary stockholder (IOW, the OWNER of the
COMPANY).

UAL was going to become the Workers Paradise=AE.

It did, and that's just the problem. Build a company for the benefit of
its employees, and the customers and owners get screwed.

I love how the union is now talking about this "CHAOS" strike where
they just randomly slack off to disrupt operations. Apparently they
forgot about these annoying people called "customers."

United may not die, but at this point it certainly deserves to.

-cwk.

"John Galban" wrote in message
oups.com...

Bob Moore wrote:
From the Wikipedia...the on-line encyclopedia:

A "pension plan" or "retirement plan" is an arrangment by which an
employer
(for example, a corporation, labor union, government agency) provides

income to its employees after retirement. Pension plans are a form of

"deferred compensation" and became popular in the United States
during the
1930s, when wage freezes prohibited direct pay (in the form of
salary) to
increase.

John...note the "deferred compensation" part. Sounds sorta like what

Stella wrote.


The deferred compensation described sounds like the company promising
to pay you later (originally because they couldn't afford to pay now).
Stella's description sounded like some sort of individual account, like
a 401K, where actual earned dollars (not deferred) are used.

Quite!! Mostly, deferred compensation is delayed just a few years to smooth
out cash flow for tax purposes.



A 401K (or similar individual retirement account) is usually not
under the direct control of a company, and cannot be squandered by
them. A promise by a company to pay your salary after retirement is
just that. Words.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

"Bob Moore" wrote in message
. 122...
Not at PanAm, the pilot group (unlike the other employee groups) insisted
that our pension plan be held by an outside source, in this case,
Prudential Insurance, and PanAm paid monthly on behalf of each of us. We
felt fairly safe when the axe fell on PanAm.....WRONG! Prudential went
to the NY Federal Court and obtained permission to dump the obligation
off to the PBGC. You can't trust anyone.


What was their "justification" for dumping it off, do you recall?

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

Pension plans are a form of
"deferred compensation" and became popular in the United States during
the
1930s, when wage freezes prohibited direct pay (in the form of salary) to
increase.

That's the problem with Wikipedia. Some damn fool typing faster than
his mind could follow!

I assure you, there were no wage freezes in the 1930, nor were they
showing any tendency to increase.. Wages were going *down* in the
1930s!

What the Wiki guy meant to say was "during World War II," but he
probably couldn't remember what number it was (I, II, III?).

Yup.

And one solution was medical insurance benefits.

And the rest is history.

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 May 2005 03:42:16 GMT, "Dave Stadt"
wrote:

I work for the State of California, have a defined-benefit pension,
and for sure they take money from my salary to help fund the pension.

That must be a reassuring position to be in, giving your retirement money
to
the State of California. Hope you are building a nest egg separate from
what you are giving to California.

And then they use it for political purposes!

Most people contribute to their pensions. Social Security is also
defined-benefit, though it's Congress that gets to define it The
difference is that with defined-benefit, it's all based on a promise,
whether or not the promise can be fulfilled.

A defined-contribution plan has no promise, and usually the worker
owns it a lot sooner. The really important part is that he can take it
from job to job, or into self-employement, which is not true of most
private-sector defined-benefit plans. Since it's based on real assets
that belong to the worker, the payout depends on the performance of
those assets.

In short, it's what some politiciians like to call "a risky scheme,"
but not half so risky as depending on the promises of companies who
may be out of business by the time you retire, and of congressmen who
will be retired (on your taxpayer dollar) much more comfortably than
you will be.


And less risky is resorting to government to uphold the payouts...at least
until they (govt guaranteed programs) all collapse, as they must, and then
they run the printing presses, as just happened about every time in history.

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
news
On 13 May 2005 05:48:16 -0700, wrote:

It's the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and it is still
technically not taxpayer-funded.

Neither were the savings & loan associations until the bailout came
due.

The PBGC overhang is nearly double what it cost us to straighten out
the S&Ls.

And about 1/4th what it's going to cost to fund the Federal Employee
retirements.

If you think UAL has a flaky employment/retirement arrangement, just wait
for the Civil Service fiasco to hit the wall.

The share holders own the company. If they think the CEO is making too
much the board doesn't have to pay them. If you think your pool boy is
making too much you don't have to pay him as much either.
Is the purpose of the company to provide employement, Mr. Marx?

-Robert

What industry are you referring to? I work in an industry that contains
a lot of H-1 employees (software, telecommunications). There is no
difference in saleries.

-Robert